The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Sunday, July 22:

"Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, symbolizes unconstrained dictators prepared to do anything, no matter how odious, to stay in power. " (Image credit: AFP via @daylife)

The forces of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad shell rebel-occupied neighborhoods of Damascus. Four young female members of a punk rock band begin their fifth month in a Moscow jail. Somewhere in China a local party boss meets with disaffected factory workers. In Washington, the full house prepares to vote on the Sergei Magnitsky Act, which calls for visa restrictions for Russian officials for human rights abuses. These disparate events are part of a larger mosaic, which begins in Syria.

Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, symbolizes unconstrained dictators prepared to do anything, no matter how odious, to stay in power. Unconstrained dictators use their secret police, militias, and armies to arrest, torture, and kill opponents. They raze whole towns. They kill innocent women and children to send a message. They are indifferent to world outrage. If Assad falls, it will not be for lack of brutality and atrocity. He may resort to chemical weapons as a last resort.

Constrained dictators, such as Mubarak, Pinochet, and the Shah, face limits imposed by moral qualms or the international community. Small protests swell, and momentum for regime change builds. Failure to use overwhelming force and efforts to compromise only embolden protesters, and eventually the constrained dictator resigns either to flee the country or to face local justice.

Two other constrained dictatorships, Russia and China, want to keep Assad in power. Both shudder at a fellow totalitarian regime falling to a disorganized opposition. They will abandon him (with great fanfare) only when it is clear that he has lost. China and Russia have their own disaffected minorities, disgruntled workers, and ideological opponents. Their one-party states lack legitimacy, and they know it. They consider themselves under constant threat, fearing the single spark that brings millions to the streets. They must snuff out any spark -- a lone barefoot lawyer or an 18 year old girl throwing a rock at security forces -- that could conceivably ignite a Tahrir Square.

Russia and China’s one-party dictatorships face different threats. China’s Communist Party (CPC) must firefight grievance demonstrations. Putin, on the other hand, must confront direct challenges to his legitimacy.

China offers jobs, growth, and a rising living standard in return for acceptance of one-party rule. The CPC’s corruption and heavy hand, however, create regional and local grievances. Ethnic minorities resent Han dominance. Farmers demonstrate against land grabs. Factory workers protest unsafe working conditions. The CPC plays cat-and-mouse games of retreat, compromise, and advance. Striking workers are promised higher wages, while their leaders are quietly arrested. They promise to replace Hans with locals. Corrupt officials are replaced with fanfare but by someone just as bad. Scapegoats, who produce tainted baby formula or defective high-speed rail, are jailed or even executed. If the party had known, these bad things would not have happened, so the story goes.

Putin’s first eight years in power offered “stability and prosperity” in return for dismantling democracy and press freedom. With economic recovery and high oil prices, Putin’s popularity anchored his claim to legitimacy. However, the Russian mood soured after 2008 with a declining economy, unsolved murders of prominent journalists, corruption everywhere, and the consensus that Putin had overstayed his welcome.

Putin’s theft of the December parliamentary elections and the disputed March presidential election destroyed the myth of a popular mandate as hundreds of thousands joined demonstrations. Large segments of the Russian political spectrum demand a Russia without Putin, but they have no alternative leaders to follow and the costs of protest are high.

Putin’s reaction has been the exact opposite of Chinese mollification. Instead of the compromise and concession widely predicted by Western pundits, the weakened Putin has cracked down and brutally. Compromise, he fears, will be interpreted as weakness. Putin’s new claim to legitimacy: Without his iron fist, poor Russia will descend into the chaos of radical protest.

Putin’s vicious crackdown has largely escaped notice. Although he harasses prominent protest leaders, Putin’s primary target is ordinary demonstrators. A teenage girl is shown on state TV being hauled off in a choke-hold and threatened with seven years in prison. A missing demonstrator is located after release from a psychiatric prison in a drug-induced stupor. Putin’s demonization of demonstrators appear ridiculous even to the most credulous viewers. His ally, the corrupt Orthodox Church leadership, brands protesters as devil worshipers.

And behind these sinister threats to Russia’s stability stands none other than Hillary Clinton and her perfidious state department, so says Putin.